Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : TSIG.com TIGI (formerly TSIG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cicak who wrote (26185)	4/20/1999 11:48:00 PM
From: Suzanne Newsome	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 44908

I had a very pleasant conversation with Paul Henry today. Unfortunately I am waiting for him to consult with the lawyers about a couple of issues. See, Jazzbo, they will talk to me! You underestimate my personal charm. Everybody else does also, but that's another problem. The thread degenerated today into what is the worst about SI: person brings up unpleasant issue; everybody attacks him; people accuse him of crimes he's never even thought of; everybody bitches and moans about the deterioration of the thread. The attempts at intimidation are hilarious! The issue? What issue? Does anybody remember the issue? The issue—if I may interrupt this other BS—concerns the shares owned by Robert Gordon and the method by which they were obtained. We "know" that R. Gordon (and family) own 14 million shares outright or 20.7 million shares depending on whether the 6.6 million conversion occurring in Feb. '99 was included in the 12/31/98 total. There is another 26.6 million shares that R. Gordon "beneficially" owns i.e. he can convert $4 million of loan into shares at $.15. We also know that Gordon received a grant of 5 million shares during 1998. These basic facts lead to the following questions: 1) Does Gordon (and family) own 14 million shares or 20.7 million shares? 2) If he owns 14 million now, and 6.6 million were obtained in Feb.'99 and 5 million were granted to him in 1998, this implies that he had 2.4 million before the 2 transactions above. This total of 2.4 million seems to grossly understate the shares I thought he owned. We need to reconstruct Gordon's share count over the last 2 years. 3) Is the outright grant of 5 million shares made to Gordon in 1998 appropriate considering the shaky state of the company's finances? Is the grant fair to all parties (Gordon, TSIG, and the shareholders)? Note that if these had been optioned shares, the company would have at least received some proceeds. 4) Is the $5 million revolving credit line which allows Gordon to convert loan into shares at $.15 fair to all parties (Gordon, TSIG, and the shareholders)? Is this credit line needed now? Is it worth having Gordon "appear" to own 41 million shares in the 10KSB? 5) Would Gordon be willing to eliminate the revolving credit line and accept a more conventional return on the money he loans TSIG? This would be a major step toward cleaning up the 10KSB. Plus the shareholders wouldn't have to look over their shoulder every day to see if their investment had been diluted by 26 million shares. I understand why such posts upset people. It's a lot more fun to read the PR's and the glowing reports of what is going to happen. I enjoy those posts too. But we all have too much money at stake to be naïve and gullible. The above issues should be discussed openly. I believe that Robert Gordon should be fairly rewarded for his labor, his initiative, his leadership, his vision, and his risk. Likewise, the shareholders should be fairly rewarded for their vision, their faith, their risk, and the use of their capital. And BTW, Sword, if you get Gordon to turn over the CEO's chair to Hwang, I have a little problem I want you to work on for me. There's this sun that rises in the east every morning. That's so overdone now. Could you get the sun to rise in the west? No hurry. Work on Gordon/Hwang first. Regards, Suzanne